64 NEUROPTERA. 



the honourable confidence of Dr. Gray, and the self-sacri- 

 ficing kindness of Mr. Adam White. 



I have always preferred giving only those species about 

 which I was certain, and leaving the rest to the amplification 

 and observation of native Entomologists. There is no doubt 

 that they will yet find a rich treasure here. It will also 

 easily be observed that my work is rather unequal. This is 

 owing simply to the circumstance, that for particular genera 

 I had better previous works to start frpm. With regard to 

 the synonyma I have the following observation to make : — 

 Curtis's work appeared in February and March, Pictet's in 

 July, 1834. Stephens (Illustrations, 1. c. p. 147) is of 

 opinion that Pictet's names, as belonging to a comprehensive 

 monograph, deserve the preference. As, however, the ma- 

 jority of the British Entomologists may not share in this 

 opinion, I have placed Curtis's names first. However, the 

 number of names thus brought into collision is but small. 

 With regard to the other synonyma, I have limited myself 

 to the most necessary ones ; those adduced almost rest upon 

 the examination of typical specimens. It is a great disad- 

 vantage that the above-mentioned types of Pictet's are not 

 compared with those of Stephens, as I could only obtain the 

 former on the very day before my return home. This is the 

 more important, as a number of nearly allied and hitherto 

 confounded species were only rendered distinct to me by 

 these types. 



The Phryganidce undoubtedly form the most difficult 

 portion of my work upon the British Neuroptera. This 

 work is indebted for its production to British kindness and 

 hospitality. May it be found not unworthy of both ! In 

 judging of it, it should not be left out of consideration that 

 the vast impression which London produced upon the mind 



